The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-11-16

the following letter, defending his
course in the Chicago. ST. Paul, Mime
apolis & Omaha railway land grant
case, and formally resigned his office:
GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, November 15, 1887.
To the President The Honorable
Secretary of the Interior advises me, by
letter dated the 10th inst, in effect that
he should, on that day, present to you
the alternative of selecting new Secre-
tary of the Interior, or a new Commits
sioner of the General Land Office. I'm.
der the authority vested in the Com
missioner by the laws, l had, previous
to September, 1887, made adjustments
of certain railroad land grants, two of
which, known as the Omaha cases,
had been specially directed by the Sec
rotary Of the Interior. On October 7th,
1887, two decisions of the secretary were
rendered in the Omaha cases, non-con-
curing in nay adjustments and over
ruling the authority on which they were
based. He directed me, at the same
time. to cause the grants to be adjusted
in conformity with said decisions.
now infer from his published letter that
the decisions were not approved by the
official lsW-adviser for the department
of the Interior. The point at issue re-
lated to claim of the railroad COM
pany's to indemnity for lands that, I'M
der the railroad granting acts, were
reserved from the operation of these
acts by the express terms of the statutes.
Previous to 1875, land that had been
reserved by the government for Indian
| and other purposes, had been patented
or certified to the companies, both ss
granted lands and as indemnity, pro-
miscaously with other lands. This
seems to have been done in pursuance
of the practice of giving railroad COM
panies whatever they asked for, appar-
emily without much consideration of
the restrictions and limitations of the
grant. In that year the title to a large
! quantity of such lands in the State of
Kansas, which had been so enormously
| conveyed to the Leavenworth, Lawrence
& Galveston Railroad Company, was
decreed invalid by the United States
| Supreme Court. Since that date lands
that we're reserved at the date of the
grant, or the date of the definite loca-
| ton of the roads, have been regarded
and treated in the division and the
practice of this Office and department
as excluded, not only from all grants,
but from the indemnity basis under all
grants, wherein such reserved lands
are, by the terms of the law, excluded
| from the operation of the act"
The Secretary held in the Omaha
| cases, that the comuany was entitled to
indemnity for such land. This decision,
if adhered to, will have the effect to
take from the peoplesmany millions of
nifty limits which, by your advice
and with your approval, as ex-
pressed in the GuilfOrd- Miller case,
have been proclaimed to the country
as restored to the public domain. The
question of the correctness of these
decisions, became, therefore, a matter
of momentous concern. If they cor
rectly declared the law, these lands be-
| long to the railroad company. If they
did not correctly declare the law, the
| lands belonged to the people.
| a The Omaha decisions purport to be
| founded upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of the
| Winona 81 st. Peter Railroad Company
vs.. Barney, the assertion being made
| that the "Dlain language" of the court
in that case seems TO be conclusive of
the questions presented" and also upon
| the certain rule of the statutory inter
probation relied upon as being All
Said decisions were further inferred
by reference to an unreported decision
of the United States Circuit Court for
Wisconsin which was said, IN the
Omaha case, to be the judicial construc-
ton, which seems to leave mo further
room for discussion" It appeared to
me that the decision OF the Supreme
Court in the Barney cases was sbso-
lutely silent upon the question decided
in the Omaha cases, and that not even
obiter, which the court sustained these
decisions.
1t also appeared to me that the
question at issue was not in the
case decided by the circuit court for
Wisconsin, and it seemed that the rule
of statutory Interpretation adopted in
the Omaha cases, was the opposite OF
the rule of construction adopted by the
courts and laid down by the law
writers. I was, therefore, profoundly
convinced that the secretary had been
committed to errors of law, which, If
brought fully to his personal attention,
might be corrected. 1t is the practice
of the department to prevent repre-
sentatives of railroad companies and
other private interests to apply for re-
views and reconsideration of decisions,
when the questions are decided against
such interests.
believed that as an officer of the
government having the immediate
guardianship of the public lands and
the immediate charge of the issuance
of patents under'all grants Of land, 1
had, at least, an equal right with the
representatives of private interests to
ask the Secretary to re-eXRmine the de-
partmental decision, and | believed it
to the Secretary in these cases, because
l had not, but would have done SO, In
the original instance. if 1 had antici-
pated change of ruling and decision
upon the point in question.
Accordingly, personally expressed
to the Secretary my desire to have q
review of the decisions in thsse cases.
He suggested to me to let the matter
rest for the present, IN which suggestion